Posted on 01/26/2005 8:39:19 AM PST by Destro
Judge Bars Terror Evidence Against Sheik
By WILLIAM GLABERSON
Published: January 26, 2005
In an important victory for a Yemeni sheik charged with financing terrorism, a federal judge yesterday prevented prosecutors from introducing what they have described as vital evidence during their initial presentation to the jury.
The judge in federal court in Brooklyn, Sterling Johnson Jr., ruled that the prosecutors cannot display three items they have said are their only corroboration for secretly recorded conversations in which they say the sheik and an aide plotted to take money for terrorist organizations.
In arguing unsuccessfully to persuade the judge to change his mind, a prosecutor, Kelly Moore, said the items the judge barred yesterday were "a significant part of the government's evidence in this case."
The ruling was important because the items the judge banned were the prosecutors' only way of proving that the defendants' supposed plan to take money for Al Qaeda and Hamas was part of a long-running effort to provide financial support to terrorist organizations.
The sheik, Mohammed Ali Hassan al-Moayad, 56, and his aide, Mohammed Mohsen Yahya Zayed, 31 are charged with conspiracy and providing financial support for Al Qaeda and Hamas.
The ruling, which created palpable anxiety among the prosecutors, said the prosecutors cannot show jurors an application of a mujahedeen fighter for entry into an Al Qaeda training camp. The prosecutors said the application, found in Afghanistan in 2001, listed Sheik Moayad as the fighter's sponsor.
The ruling also stopped prosecutors from introducing into evidence address books taken from two Muslim fighters in Bosnia in 1996. The prosecutors said the books included entries for Sheik Moayad.
Judge Johnson said that "we don't know what the source" of the Al Qaeda application was and that the address books were from a time too remote from the alleged fund-raising by the sheik in 2003. Judge Johnson said they dated back to before Al Qaeda was listed as a terrorist organization by the United States government. (You mean when al-Qaeda were helping Clinton and NATO out in Bosnia????)
The third item he banned during the prosecution's initial presentation was a videotape of a wedding in Yemen that the prosecutors said included images of Sheik Moayad cheering about the death of Jews in a Hamas terrorist attack in Israel.
Focusing on a central vulnerability for the prosecutors, Judge Johnson noted that the videotape was taken by the prosecution's main informer, Mohamed Alanssi. Mr. Alanssi drew attention to a history that included bad debts and legal troubles when he set himself on fire outside the White House in November.
After that act, the prosecutors suggested they would not call Mr. Alanssi as a witness. Yesterday, Judge Johnson said the prosecutors could not show the wedding videotape unless Mr. Alanssi testified.
"If the informant wants to come in and testify as to what he saw and observed, I'll allow it," Judge Johnson said from the bench.
Pressed by Judge Johnson, Ms. Moore said more definitively than she has before that the prosecutors were "not planning" to call Mr. Alanssi as a witness.
In her argument, Ms. Moore noted that Mr. Zayed and, possibly the sheik, were expected to argue that they were entrapped by two informers into making the damaging statements that were secretly taped in Germany in January 2003. She said the prosecutors wanted to use the documents and the tape recordings to undercut that argument by asserting that they showed a long pattern of involvement in terrorist activities.
The prosecutors have portrayed Sheik Moayad as an important Al Qaeda financier, but in recent weeks it has appeared that their allegations about Al Qaeda have been fading in importance to the case.
Judge Johnson said the prosecutors could renew an application to have the three items admitted after the initial phase of the case when they try to rebut any defense that is advanced. But Jonathan Marks, the defense lawyer for Mr. Zayed, said the judge's legal reasons for disallowing the items would probably remain the same.
The ruling came on what was to have been the eve of the opening of the prosecution's case. But the opening statements scheduled for today were delayed because one of the sheik's lawyers, Howard L. Jacobs, was hospitalized because of a heart attack Monday morning.
Mr. Jacobs, a court-appointed lawyer, has represented the sheik for nearly two years. A month ago, another lawyer, William H. Goodman, joined in the defense.
Yesterday, Mr. Goodman asked for a delay because of Mr. Jacobs's illness. But Judge Johnson bowed to the prosecutors' request that no lengthy delay be granted, saying that Mr. Goodman was capable of carrying on.
Jury selection is to be completed this morning. Opening statements and the start of testimony is now scheduled for tomorrow.
"The harm to my client," Mr. Goodman said yesterday, "is his attorney for the past two years cannot participate in his defense."
Damned activist lib-dem judges are putting America in even more danger! All terrorists should be tried by military tribunals and executed, after being tortured for intel. No exceptions.
Sterling Johnson for brains...
Billary???????????????????????
See link @ #6
Forgot to mention on my last post, then have the MP sit in front of the courthouse for about a week just to remind the judge be careful.
Before you all get overexercised, these rulings are based on standard evidentiary rules against heresay and requiring proper foundation. They are not outrageous at all within the context of the facts as described in the article.
This is war, stupid. Many laws will have to change to protect. WAR, Stupid. How many time must we be attacked to get you lawyers to realize we are in trouble.
Judge Johnson said that "we don't know what the source" of the Al Qaeda application was - That is up to a jury to decide - not a judge.
and that the address books were from a time too remote from the alleged fund-raising by the sheik in 2003. Judge Johnson said they dated back to before Al Qaeda was listed as a terrorist organization by the United States government. Say what????
see my #13
This guy was a Bush appointee.
Biography
Throughout his long and varied career, Judge Sterling Johnson has been a socially progressive force and has served with conscientious integrity. Johnson was born on May 14, 1934, in Brooklyn, New York, and grew up with his parents, three sisters and brother in the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood.
Restless as a youth, Johnson graduated from high school only because his father insisted he do so in order to join the U.S. Marine Corps. Johnson joined the Marines and served for three years. He then returned to New York and joined the New York City Police Department in 1956 as a police officer, where he steadily moved up the ranks. At the same time, he began night school at Brooklyn College and obtained his degree after eight and a half years of part-time study. After finishing, Johnson then went on to Brooklyn Law School, graduating in 1966 in the top 10 percent of his class.
In 1967, Johnson began the second phase of his law enforcement career as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, acquiring a reputation as a tough prosecutor. After three years, Johnson was appointed executive director of the Civilian Complaint Review Board, investigating allegations of police misconduct and brutality. In 1974, Johnson was named executive liaison officer for the Drug Enforcement Administration in Washington, D.C. Subsequently, Johnson became the special narcotics prosecutor for New York City for fourteen years, garnering acclaim for his outspoken stance on the "war on drugs."
In 1991, President George H.W. Bush appointed Johnson a federal judge to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, where he continues today. Johnson credits his varied background in law enforcement for bringing a fresh and unique perspective to the federal court.
You don't have to get snippy. If you want to change to rules of evidence that apply to criminal prosecutions in this country, that's a legitimate debate. What these prosecutors are trying to do is very difficult under current rules. That's the truth of it. It's not my fault. And I'm probably not as stupid as you think, though at times I feel I'm in the grips of pre-alzheimers.
I mentioned both heresay and foundation. To introduce a document, you have to lay an evidentiary foundation that establishes the authenticity of the document and its relevancy to the case.
The judge in such cases should throw evidence out if it is "forged" or suspect (like a photocopy vs an original document). What was thrown out should be have been admitted into evidence and the defense's job would have been to call such evidence into question.
Congressman Billybob
I'm with you on that one. I'm sure the govt. would have prosecuted this "Shiek" that way if they could have. I don't know the specific circumstances of this case or why it is in Federal Court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.